Intestinal parasites: Associations with intestinal and systemic inflammation

Beyene

et al. 2019

Preprint

20 Background: Intestinal parasitic infection affects 3.5 billion people in the world and mostly 21 affecting the low socio-economic groups. The objectives of this research were to estimate the 22 prevalence and determinants of intestinal parasitic infection among family members of known 23 intestinal parasite infected patients. 24 Methods and materials: A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented in the 25 urban and rural settings of mecha district. The data were collected from August 2017 to March 26 2019 from intestinal parasitic infected patient household members. Epi-info software was used to 27 calculate the sample size, 4531 household members were estimated to be included. Data were 28 collected using interview technique and colleting stool samples from each household contact of 29 intestinal parasite patients. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the prevalence of 30 intestinal parasites among known contacts of intestinal parasites patients/family members. 31 Binary logistic regression was used to identify the determinant factors of intestinal parasitic 32 infection among family members. 33 Results: The prevalence of intestinal parasite among household contacts of parasite-infected 34 family members was 86.14 % [95% CI: 86.14 % -87.15 %]. Hookworm parasitic infection was 35 the predominant type of infection (18.8%). Intestinal parasitic infection was associated with sex, 36 environmental sanitation, source of water, habit of playing with domestic animals, the presence 37 of chicken in the house, the presence of household water filtering materials, overcrowding, 38 personal hygiene, residence, and substandard house, role in the household, source of light for the 39 house, floor materials, trimmed fingernails, family size, regular hand washing practice, barefoot. 3 40 Conclusion: The prevalence of intestinal parasites was high among household contacts of 41 primary confirmed cases. 42 Key words: intestinal parasite, contact screening, secondary attack rate, household members. 43 Introduction 44 Intestinal parasites are groups of worm's primary affecting the gastrointestinal tracts broadly 45 contains flatworms (tapeworms and flukes) and roundworms( ascariasis, pinworm, and 46 hookworm infections)[1]. The mode of transmission includes ingestion of uncooked animal 47 products, consuming infected water, absorption through the skin and fecal-oral [2]. 48 Predominantly intestinal parasitic infection transmitted through feco-oral route [3]. That means 49 all family members living in intestinal positive patients at higher risk of acquiring the infection. 50 A patient infected with intestinal parasite manifests with abdominal cramp, vomiting, excessive 51 bowl sound, nausea, diarrhea, loss of appetite, malabsorption, skin itching [4]. Due to 52 unspecified symptoms, the diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infection usually performed by taking 53 stool samples and applying different laboratory techniques, concentration technique is more 54 valid than the other laboratory techniques [5]. 55 Intes...

“…This finding agrees with findings from Accra [33]. This is because of the proximity of mothers and children to the household wastes which harbors numerous intestinal parasites [34].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Intestinal parasitic infection among household contacts of primary cases, a comparative cross-sectional study

Beyene

et al. 2019

Preprint

“…This finding agrees with findings from Accra [28]. This is because of the proximity of mothers and children to the household wastes, which contains numerous intestinal parasites [29].…”

Section: Intestinal Parasitic Infection Among Childrensupporting

confidence: 91%

Intestinal parasitic infection among household contacts of primary cases, a comparative cross-sectional study

Beyene

Feleke³

et al. 2019

PLoS ONE

Background Intestinal parasitic infection affects 3.5 billion people in the world and mostly affecting the low socioeconomic groups. The objectives of this research works were to estimate the prevalence and determinants of intestinal parasitic infection among family members of known intestinal parasite infected patients. Methods and materials A comparative cross-sectional study design was implemented in the urban and rural settings of Mecha district. The data were collected from August 2017toMarch 2019 from intestinal parasite infected patient household members. Epi-info software was used to calculate the sample size, 4531 household members were estimated to be included. Data were collected using interview technique, and collecting stool samples from each household contact of intestinal parasite patients. Descriptive statistics were used to estimate the prevalence of intestinal parasites among known contacts of intestinal parasite patients/family members. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the determinant factors of intestinal parasitic infection among family members. Results The prevalence of intestinal parasite among household contacts of intestinal parasiteinfected family members was 86.14% [95% CI: 86.14%-87.15%]. Hookworm infection was the predominant type of infection (18.8%). Intestinal parasitic infection was associated with sex, environmental sanitation, overcrowding, personal hygiene, residence, substandard house, role in the household, source of light for the house, trimmed fingernails, family size, regular handwashing practice. Protozoa infection was associated with habit of ingesting raw vegetable, playing with domestic animals, water source and the presence of household water filtering materials.

“…Intestinal parasite infections may cause behavioral problems via multiple plausible biological mechanisms. Intestinal parasites may influence the maturing and developing brain by causing micronutrient deficiencies [ 20 ], or affecting gut-brain-axis by changing the intestinal microbiome [ 25 – 27 ], and causing intestinal inflammation [ 28 ]. Changes in the intestinal microbiota after antibiotic treatment [ 41 , 42 ] for intestinal parasite infections may also impact the children’s brain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intestinal parasites also affect the microbial imbalance of intestinal microbiota [25][26][27]. Intestinal parasites alter the intestinal physiology, cause chronic intestinal inflammation [28], and impact on the microbiota-gut-brain axis [27,[29][30][31]. The gut microbiome affects brain function by changing immunological mechanisms, causing inflammation, and modifying the functions of several neurotransmitters [32][33][34][35][36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intestinal parasites may be associated with later behavioral problems in internationally adopted children

et al. 2021

Aim At arrival in new home country, internationally adopted children often have intestinal parasites. International adoptees also exhibit more behavioral problems than their biological peers. We examined whether intestinal parasite infections in international adoptees on arrival in Finland are associated with their later behavioral and emotional problems. Methods Data for this study were sourced from the Finnish Adoption Study (FinAdo) based on parental questionnaires for all internationally adopted children under 18 years (n = 1450) who arrived in Finland from 1985 to 2007. A total of 1293 families provided sufficient information on the adoptee’s background, parasitic status on arrival, and behavioral symptoms at the median time of 5 years after arrival (mean age = 7.8 years). Behavioral and emotional disorders were evaluated with the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Statistical analyses were conducted using linear regression. Results Of the 1293 families, parents of 206 adoptive children reported intestinal parasites in their adopted children on arrival. Parasite-infected children had subsequently higher CBCL problem scores than the children without parasites (p < 0.001). The association between intestinal parasites and later behavioral problems was stronger than that between intestinal parasites and any other factors measured in this study, except disability. Limitations The control group was naturally provided by the adopted children without parasite infections, but we could not compare the adopted children to non-adopted children without a defined parasite infection. We were unable to specify the effects associated with a specific parasite type. It was not possible either to include multiple environmental factors that could have been associated with behavioral problems in the models, which indicated only modest explanatory values. Conclusions In this study, intestinal parasite infections in early childhood may be associated with children’s later psychological wellbeing, even in children who move to a country with a low prevalence of parasites. Our findings may support further developments pertaining to the gut-brain theory.